NHMP & Operation Dry Water

[Skip]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

...I want to know how they intend to do BWI checkpoints on the water? I assume the same rules apply to the water as road?

...I do know the MP need probable cause to pull stop you, no random checks allowed... Woodsy...

While the nationwide press release talks about boating BUI checks, in NH there will be only increased and intensive patrols based on actual boating violations. You are correct, in order to setup a "raod block", whether on land or water, requires Court permission and appropriate public disclosure, at least here in NH. Other States have lesser standards. The article is intermingling our Director's press release with the Nationwide release which may ad to some confusion.

As a sidenote, an officer only needs "articulable suspicion" to temporarily stop and detain you, not "probable cause". The officer requires "probable cause" to cite or arrest you.

Without going into a lot of legalese, let me give you an example.

A NHMP officer sees you operating your boat in an erratic manner while not displaying your lights after dark. This gives him "articulable suspicion" to temporarily detain you and to further determine the reason for your behavior, such as excessive consumption of alcohol. After he stops you he detects a strong odor of an alcoholic beverage on you breath, your words are slurred and mumbled and you do not have the dexterity to produce your boater's certificate without dropping it into the bilge. After you fish it out through a pile of Bud Lite empties and fail a series of sobriety tests the officer then has developed enough "probable cause" to arrest you for Boating While Intoxicated.

Articulable suspicion gives him the justification to temporarily detain you to determine if and what level an offense may have occurred. Probable cause is sometimes derived out of information developed during the stop to rise to the level of an arrest.

Hope this helps explain it a little better....

[Woodsy]

Skip...

As always thanks for the clarification! I am pretty sure I get it!

I assume the "articuable suspicion" could have been either lights or erratic drving? Wouldn't the lights not displayed properly been enough for a stop? I am curious because erratic can/could be open to interpretation...


Thanks Again!

Woodsy

[Skip]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

Skip...

As always thanks for the clarification! I am pretty sure I get it!

I assume the "articuable suspicion" could have been either lights or erratic drving? Wouldn't the lights not displayed properly been enough for a stop? I am curious because erratic can/could be open to interpretation...


Thanks Again!

Woodsy

You are correct, either observation could be enough for a stop.

However, whenever you make an arrest for DWI or BUI after you have observed operation, you want to clearly articulate any operation that was occuring prior to the stop. On many occasions you will not get an admissable blood, breath or urine sample to enter into evidence. Operation becomes a key component of your assertion that the operator was unfit to drive. Absent a chemical test and given just sobriety tests, if you testify that the operation was normal prior to the stop there is a good chance that the defendant will be found not guilty.

Good attorneys know how to nullify or minimize field sobriety tests. In order to obtain a conviction you must be able to clearly articulate all aspects of the stop, including those observed operational behaviors that drew your suspicion in the first place.

[hazelnut]

My question to you both would be, do you expect that Marine Patrol will be hanging out around the docks at late hours (after 12am) waiting for any boater to untie and head out and target them?

While I agree with the effort in spirit I get this weird feeling about this "big brother" mentality associated with this campaign. I don't have any bright ideas myself with regard to stopping intoxicated boaters from hitting the waterways. But, this whole effort seems extremely broad based. I wonder what Director Barrett would be instructing his officers to do that is any different from a regular patrol on any other weekend. Purely speculation but would it involve targeting any and all boats leaving Braun Baty during the afternoon or targeting any and all boats leaving docks after 10pm for example?

[Skip]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

...I don't have any bright ideas myself with regard to stopping intoxicated boaters from hitting the waterways. But, this whole effort seems extremely broad based. I wonder what Director Barrett would be instructing his officers to do that is any different from a regular patrol on any other weekend. Purely speculation but would it involve targeting any and all boats leaving Braun Baty during the afternoon or targeting any and all boats leaving docks after 10pm for example?...

Good questions!

But, nothing nefarious here.

I suspect the Director will be putting his most experienced officers in areas and at times that statistics and experience tell him the greatest chance of boating while intoxicated occurs.

An experienced officer knows which types of violations under given circumstances indicate the possibility of intoxication.

The solution here is simple folks. Do not operate a boat while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, and especially do not be drinking and boating this upcoming weekend.

Remember, a large part of this campaign is to prevent BUI arrests before they can happen. The widespread publicity is intentional, it is meant to force the public to think before drinking and getting behind the helm. If the publicity stops but one person from doing so, then the whole effort was successful.

Finally, yes....in every large organization there are times and there are people that make mistakes or just plain aren't good at what they do. If you are genuinely harrassed or mistreated by a law enforcement officer, then by all means file a timely report to the agency responsible. Grousing here on the internet solves nothing.

But remember, the men & women that make up NHMP are by far (with very few exceptions) dedicated professionals that truly spend their time and training on the water to protect all of us, just as is the case with all others involved in law enforcement, fire services and EMS/RESCUE.

Know the rules, boat with common sense and courtesy and always have a sober skipper at the helm. If you follow that simple advice the most you should ever receive from an NHMP officer is a friendly wave!

[Woodsy]

Originally Posted by Skip

Good questions!

But, nothing nefarious here.

I suspect the Director will be putting his most experienced officers in areas and at times that statistics and experience tell him the greatest chance of boating while intoxicated occurs.

An experienced officer knows which types of violations under given circumstances indicate the possibility of intoxication.

The solution here is simple folks. Do not operate a boat while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, and especially do not be drinking and boating this upcoming weekend.

Remember, a large part of this campaign is to prevent BUI arrests before they can happen. The widespread publicity is intentional, it is meant to force the public to think before drinking and getting behind the helm. If the publicity stops but one person from doing so, then the whole effort was successful.

Finally, yes....in every large organization there are times and there are people that make mistakes or just plain aren't good at what they do. If you are genuinely harrassed or mistreated by a law enforcement officer, then by all means file a timely report to the agency responsible. Grousing here on the internet solves nothing.

But remember, the men & women that make up NHMP are by far (with very few exceptions) dedicated professionals that truly spend their time and training on the water to protect all of us, just as is the case with all others involved in law enforcement, fire services and EMS/RESCUE.

Know the rules, boat with common sense and courtesy and always have a sober skipper at the helm. If you follow that simple advice the most you should ever receive from an NHMP officer is a friendly wave!

BRAVO! That sums it up nicely! Thanks Skip!

Woodsy

[Lakegeezer]

This web site from PA implies that BWI laws do not apply to non-powered boats, such as Kayaks (KWI). Are those same exceptions relevant in NH?

[Skip]

Originally Posted by Lakegeezer

This web site from PA implies that BWI laws do not apply to non-powered boats, such as Kayaks (KWI). Are those same exceptions relevant in NH?

No, those exceptions are not relevant in New Hampshire. You can be arrested and convicted of Boating While Intoxicated in New Hampshire regardless if the boat is operated by power, sail, or paddle.

Here are excerpts from the two applicable RSAs:

265-A:2 Driving or Operating Under Influence of Drugs or Liquor; Driving or Operating With Excess Alcohol Concentration. –

II. No person shall operate or attempt to operate a boat while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or a controlled drug or any combination of intoxicating liquor and a controlled drug or drugs, or while such person has an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more or in the case of persons under the age of 21, 0.02 or more.



265-A:1 Definitions. – In this chapter:

II. ''Boat'' means and includes every type of watercraft used or capable of being used as a means of transportation on the water.


V. ""Operate,'' when used in relation to a boat, means to drive, paddle, row, or exercise control over any boat unless the boat is at anchor, docked, made fast, or moored.

[jrc]

to save some typing read this thread fofrm a couple years ago.

Skip has your opinion changed?

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...ead.php?t=5047

[Skip]

Originally Posted by jrc

to save some typing read this thread fofrm a couple years ago.

Skip has your opinion changed?

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...ead.php?t=5047

Yes....good point!

The definitions were clarified in 2008, and the legislative intent was made clear that all boats, not just motorized vessels, are subject to this RSA.

[woodswalk]

II. ''Boat'' means and includes every type of watercraft used or capable of being used as a means of transportation on the water.

So, no more floating on an inflatable after a couple beverages of choice?

[SBC]

Originally Posted by woodswalk

II. ''Boat'' means and includes every type of watercraft used or capable of being used as a means of transportation on the water.

So, no more floating on an inflatable after a couple beverages of choice?

They are toys when utilized in non-navigable waters, i.e. close to shore, in a swim area, etc. When they move into navigable waters then they become a boat. So if junior and his friends want to paddle their inflatables, or similar devices, across the pond, lake, cove, etc., they should be equipped with the most basic safe boating requirement-a wearable PFD. BTW, if they are under 13 years of age they should be wearing those PFDs in that scenario.

[Sunbeam lodge]

What happens if you are caught in one of these checkpoints and there is no probable cause. But then they find you don't have a fire extinguisher on board. Do you get a ticket? There was no reason to stop you in the first place.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by Sunbeam lodge

What happens if you are caught in one of these checkpoints and there is no probable cause. But then they find you don't have a fire extinguisher on board. Do you get a ticket? There was no reason to stop you in the first place.

Once again for clarification:

There are no "checkpoints" being utilized by the NHMP in this effort. They are simply intensifying their pursuit of stops based on existing violations.

And I repeat, you do not need probable cause to tmporarily stop and detain an individual. You need probable cause to effect an arrest. You only need the lesser level of articulable suspicion to temporarily stop and detain.

[jrc]

Did anyone notice any extra enforcement last weekend?

I was surprised as I walk the marina in the morning, that only a few people had heard about Operation Drywater or any news about increase enforcement.

I did hear some chatter later in the evening about the MP visiting boats in Braun Bay to just talk to people and remind them about the rafting rules. Probably a good chance to see people up close.

I also heard some people talking about special 48 hour zero tolerance rules on drinking on boats. Sounded a very non-credible and probably just a frequent flyer upset that he had to pass up his breakfast beer.

[Rinkerfam]

We traveled from Paugus Bay Marina to the Meredith town docks and back during the course of the day and saw absolutely no marine patrol presence.

[ApS]

I was out on the Broads for nearly four hours on Saturday morning, and saw no MPs.

[SIKSUKR]

Originally Posted by jrc

Did anyone notice any extra enforcement last weekend?

I also heard some people talking about special 48 hour zero tolerance rules on drinking on boats. Sounded a very non-credible and probably just a frequent flyer upset that he had to pass up his breakfast beer.

Huh?Since when can you not drink alchohol in a boat?

[jrc]

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

Huh?Since when can you not drink alchohol in a boat?

You can drink alchohol on boats, nothing has changed. Obviously, you still can't be drunk.

I was just relaying some mis-information or dis-information I heard, as I said it does not seem credible. A lot of people were talking about the event after the fact and a lot of the stories felt like exagerations or just plain made up.

One guy said he delayed drinking until noon, just to be safe. Another guy talked about what he ate to cover the smell. Another talked about having only six beers per person on the boat to avoid over indulgence. Two others argued if the fine for BUI was worse than boating without a safety cert. He wanted his sober wife to drive the boat home.

I guess getting people talking about it, is a good thing, it raises awareness.

[Jeti]

Originally Posted by Skip

No, those exceptions are not relevant in New Hampshire. You can be arrested and convicted of Boating While Intoxicated in New Hampshire regardless if the boat is operated by power, sail, or paddle.

Here are excerpts from the two applicable RSAs:

265-A:2 Driving or Operating Under Influence of Drugs or Liquor; Driving or Operating With Excess Alcohol Concentration. –

II. No person shall operate or attempt to operate a boat while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or a controlled drug or any combination of intoxicating liquor and a controlled drug or drugs, or while such person has an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more or in the case of persons under the age of 21, 0.02 or more.



265-A:1 Definitions. – In this chapter:

II. ''Boat'' means and includes every type of watercraft used or capable of being used as a means of transportation on the water.


V. ""Operate,'' when used in relation to a boat, means to drive, paddle, row, or exercise control over any boat unless the boat is at anchor, docked, made fast, or moored.

The Bill of Rights refers to the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution, the fourth of which states that:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Thus the Constitution protects people from being stopped without a search warrant or at least “probable cause” that they have committed a crime.

The Michigan Supreme Court found sobriety checkpoints to be a violation of the Fourth Amendment. However, in a split decision, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Michigan court. Although acknowledging that such roadblocks violate a fundamental constitutional right, Chief Justice Rehnquist argued that they are necessary in order to reduce drunk driving. That is, he argued that the end justifies the means. Attorney and law professor Lawrence Taylor refers to this as “the DUI exception to the Constitution.” 1

Dissenting justices emphasized that the Constitution doesn’t provide exceptions. "That stopping every car might make it easier to prevent drunken driving ... is an insufficient justification for abandoning the requirement of individualized suspicion," dissenting Justice Brennan insisted. 2

Chief Justice Rehnquist had argued that violating individual constitutional rights was justified because sobriety roadblocks were effective and necessary. But dissenting Justice Stevens pointed out that "the findings of the trial court, based on an extensive record and affirmed by the Michigan Court of Appeals, indicate that the net effect of sobriety checkpoints on traffic safety is infinitesimal and possibly negative." 3 And even if roadblocks were effective, the fact that they work wouldn’t justify violating individuals’ constitutional rights, justices argued.

While the U.S. Supreme Court has made the DUI exemption to the Constitution, eleven states have found that sobriety checkpoints violate their own state constitutions or have outlawed them. In these states, individuals have more protections against unreasonable search and police sobriety roadblocks are prohibited.

Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), which strongly promotes them, implies that sobriety roadblocks are legal throughout the entire United States without exception. It says that “the U.S. Supreme Court on June 14, 1990 upheld the use of sobriety checkpoints to detect and deter impaired drivers. Previous appeals to the Supreme Court to review the constitutionality of such checkpoints had been declined, which allowed high state court rulings to stand. The June 14, 1990 ruling clearly upheld the constitutionality of such enforcement measures.” 4

MADD also dismisses those who question the use of sobriety checkpoints by asserting that “opponents of sobriety checkpoints tend to be those who drink and drive frequently and are concerned about being caught.” 5 MADD provides no evidence of this assertion and none has been found in any published research study. There are, however, published reports that opposition is especially strong among civil libertarians, judges, law enforcement leaders and conservatives. 6

There are many arguments both for and against the use of roadblocks in our effort to reduce drunk driving. For example, many law enforcement officials and researchers believe that roving patrols are much more effective and are a better use of scarce resources. People of good will can and do disagree on such important matters.

Unfortunately, MADD’s effort to discredit and marginalize those with whom it disagrees is unproductive and doesn‘t help us make the best decisions about how to reduce impaired and drunk driving, whether or not that involves police roadblocks.

[Skip]

Hi Jeti,

Very good points you raise!

But everyone needs to remember, Director Barrett has only stated that their participation in this excercise will be via intensified patrol efforts. There is no plan to conduct random or organized checkpoints, as the State has very serious restrictions on these types of activities.

I myself am not comfortable with either random or organized checkpoints and feel that high publicity and high visibility patrols (such as the NHMP is doing in this case) is the appropriate and fair way to discourage folks from operating while intoxicated, either by boat, car or kayak!

[VtSteve]

I don't really have much problem with checkpoints, although on the lake would be pretty weird. I would suggest that Director Barrett be aware that some pretty above average and responsible people have a little less respect for the MP than people think they deserve.

In order to be taken seriously, things need to be in order.

[ApS]

ETA:
Massachusetts and the Coast Guard are operating an "Operation 'Dry Water'" also. They will operate checkpoints.

Originally Posted by Jeti

"...Unfortunately, MADD’s effort...doesn‘t help us make the best decisions about how to reduce impaired and drunk driving, whether or not that involves police roadblocks..."

On the Big Lake, that roadblock can consist of the MPs "crowding a boat" on whom they'd previously developed information as having a drunken skipper:

In other words, a violation of the 150' rule will have given the NHMP "probable cause" for a stop to sniff around—and be doing it legally.

The NHMPs could be called on this, citing a MOVING checkpoint.

To challenge a moving-BWI-checkpoint, I can see a formerly-charged drunken boater taking this kind of case to the U. S. Supreme Court.

It's even possible that the New Hampshire-only 150-foot rule could be thrown out as the MPs would then have an unfettered and unconstitutional use of it for searches in conjunction with an instant roadblock of their own making!

BTW: Didn't New Hampshire show just two BWI arrests for one whole year recently? And, of that number, how many developed into convictions? .....None?
.
.

[kara1]

Originally Posted by Skip

While the nationwide press release talks about boating BUI checks, in NH there will be only increased and intensive patrols based on actual boating violations. You are correct, in order to setup a "raod block", whether on land or water, requires Court permission and appropriate public disclosure, at least here in NH. Other States have lesser standards. The article is intermingling our Director's press release with the Nationwide release which may ad to some confusion.

As a sidenote, an officer only needs "articulable suspicion" to temporarily stop and detain you, not "probable cause". The officer requires "probable cause" to cite or arrest you.

Without going into a lot of legalese, let me give you an example.http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...es/liplick.gif

A NHMP officer sees you operating your boat in an erratic manner while not displaying your lights after dark. This gives him "articulable suspicion" to temporarily detain you and to further determine the reason for your behavior, such as excessive consumption of alcohol. After he stops you he detects a strong odor of an alcoholic beverage on you breath, your words are slurred and mumbled and you do not have the dexterity to produce your boater's certificate without dropping it into the bilge. After you fish it out through a pile of Bud Lite empties and fail a series of sobriety tests the officer then has developed enough "probable cause" to arrest you for Boating While Intoxicated.

Articulable suspicion gives him the justification to temporarily detain you to determine if and what level an offense may have occurred. Probable cause is sometimes derived out of information developed during the stop to rise to the level of an arrest.

Hope this helps explain it a little better....

Excellent, thanks! Hope this helps explain it a little better

[hazelnut]

http://www.milforddailynews.com/home...oating-dwindle

Interesting article. Not sure what to make of it. It seems that there is a serious manpower problem in MA.